At present, in my critical thinking class, we’ve been discussing rhetoric and what the book refers to as psychological fallacies. After discussing a number of the informal fallacies a student queried “so, are these fallacies simply automatic psychological distortions that are somehow caused by the brain, or are people intentionally trying to deceive their audience when these fallacies are committed?” Given that I generally find that my students are solipsists, or at least atomistic individualists, I was pleased by this question as it indicated the student was thinking about audience or others. I responded that there is no black and white answer to this question, and, as I have argued here, often these distortions are more the result of our passionate attachments than the result of a malicious desire to achieve. I did, however, try to come up with some examples, pointing to the outrage machines on the news (Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Al Franken, Kieth Olbermann) who perhaps intentionally employ certain fallacies to the advantage of their ideology (particularly the ever favorite argument from outrage, where the outrage has little or nothing to do with the claim). Casting about for another example I also brought up the “Creation Evidence Museum” here in Texas (google it, I won’t link to it), where there is a dinosaur footprint with a human footprint inside of it. “Certainly this”, I mused, “was an example of an intentional deception on the part of the proprietors of the museum. And what would motivate such people to fabricate evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time? Perhaps the belief that their creation story must be literally true regardless.” Immediately two students piped up: “But the Bible mentions ‘behemoths’!!!” (Google “are dinosaurs in the Bible” and hit the second link, it has some marvelous cartoon drawings). I asked how they knew that “behemoth” refers to dinosaurs rather than elephants, whales, or giant squid. They seemed nonplussed. Such, I suppose, is the power of some ignorant, yet “well meaning”, priests who would foster a sense of misology among their lay and strive to keep them in a state of ignorant denial. The worst part is that I actually feel guilty, as if there is something wrong in actively advocating evolutionary theory in biology… As if there is actually a legitimate controversy here. It is the same sort of guilt I sometimes feel when anthropomorphic global warming issues come up… As if you’re supposed to give credence to those who treat it merely as a natural cycle.
March 11, 2008

March 11, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I think you are wrong about the human footprint/ dinosaur footprint thing – what the museum is actually proving is that the Flintstones were real. This is America – if it has been on tv, it has to be real. I believe the museum also displays one of Wilma’s mastodon fur coats.
However, the best museum in Texas used to be in the Pearl Brewery in San Antonio: the Buckhorn Hall of Horns. This museum was dedicated to the Texan sport to shooting any animal with horns and stuffing them. A heady odor of formaldahyde greeted the visitor, which seemed to come from some of the seedier specimens. And there was a section reserved for freaks (or fakes) that included one jack rabbit with a sort of goat’s horn growing out of its forehead.
Now, there’s science I can get behind!
March 11, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Doh! I knew I must be missing the point! Thanks Roger!
March 11, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Ironically, if you go the Creation Museum’s Website and click on FAQs – there is one that goes: “Are dinosaurs found in the Bible?” – click on it and you get a page open in a new window with a large “Not Found” sign…
March 13, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Funny, I’ve always felt the same whenever I talked about religion with anyone and the debate got heated after a while, prompting me to call the Bible a book of infantile fairy tales and imbecile superstitions – I always felt so guilt-ridden afterwards (“what if I really hurt their feelings?”) But then at a certan point I read a lot of Lacan and I came to suspect that religion might really represent a form of jouissance so in the end I reckoned that patiently trying to change someone’s mind about holding infantile religious beliefs through rational arguments in Dawkins’ fashion is about as futile and pointless exercise as trying to dissuade my 15-year old son from masturbating. I guess I’ll leave that to the priests.
Anyway, sorry for blathering.
March 13, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I think you’re right on the mark, No Name. Wherever there’s passionate attachment, whether in religion, politics, nationalistic identifications, relationships, etc., the possibilities of persuasion seem well nigh impossible. It’s as if some sort of filtering mechanism engages itself in the brain and you cease to even hear the other person. Their speech becomes like that of the parents in the Peanuts: (angry) Wonk, wonk, wonk, wonk. I’d go one step further and even say that the attempt to do so is even counter-productive as it immediately puts the other person on the defensive and just leads to futile conflict.
March 29, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I’m continually amazed at this dinosaur conflation – which is very un-Biblical to say the least. Sort of like the Jonah and the whale story. It clearly says fish!
Anyway, this is marketing because kids love dinosaurs no matter their religious setting.
Very sad that students are clinging to this at their age? a course on translation might be useful to go with your evolutionary tips!
As someone who was raised in that environment – 70′-80’s, there was no mention of dinosaurs as biblical. I’d like to know when this strategy was developed to market this to kids.
pointing out the absurdity may be fruitless, theoretically but you still might wake up someone. That’s worth it.
March 30, 2008 at 2:54 pm
When I was growing up, I was really into dinosaurs and was concerned to make it fit with the Bible somehow, but there wasn’t anything approaching (claimed) certainty about whether the Bible mentioned them. Apparently as the battle has progressed, the fundamentalists have gotten better at providing their kids with canned answers — similar to how the production values on Christian rock have improved.
Interesting sidenote — my elementary school library had a book, designed for children, arguing that dinosaurs were warm-blooded and had feathers. Something about how their bones are somehow structured more like warm-blooded animals’ bones? I don’t know, I was in third grade. But presumably this theory had to be widespread enough that at some point someone thought a children’s book on it would sell, right? I’ve never heard of the idea anywhere else.